a at the proposed bell bend nuclear power plant site, luzerne … · 2012-08-03 · seine in 2007...

Final

A Field Survey of Fish and Aquatic Macroinvertebratesat the Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Site,

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Submitted to:AREVA NP, Inc.

Marlborough, MA

Rev. 4September 2011

A Field Survey of Fish and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates at the Proposed Bell Bend NuclearPower Plant Site, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RECORD OF REVISIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2

PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................... 2

METHODS ...................................................................... 3

FISH COLLECTIONS .............................................................................................. 3

STREAM MACROINVERTEBRATES ........................................................................... 5

POND/ CANAL MACROINVERTEBRATES ................................................................ 6

STREAM SITE DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................................. 6

HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................... 8

W ATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 9

F IS H ...................................................................................................................... 9

Pond Surveys 2007 ............................................................................... 9

Pond Surveys 2008 ............................................................................... 9

North Branch Canal and adjacent areas 2010 ....................................... 10

W alker Run Fall 2007 ........................................................................... 12

W alker Run Spring 2008 ..................................................................... 12

Walker Run Summer 2008... ............................... 13

MACROINVERTEBRATES ...................................................................................... 14

Ponds/Canal 2008 ............................................................................... 14

W alker Run Fall 2007 ........................................................................... 14

W alker Run Spring 2008 ....................................................................... 15

W alker Run Sum mer 2008 ................................................................... 16

Unnamed Tributaries ............................................................................ 18

LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 20


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Habitat assessment summary for six stations located on Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1.

Table 2. Water quality data collected from Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1during Fall 2007 and Spring and Summer 2008.

Table 3. Water quality data collected from on-site ponds during Fall 2007 and Summer2008.

Table 4. Water quality data collected from the Canal and adjacent areas during Spring2010.

Table 5. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three ponds locatedwithin the proposed BBNPP site on November 8, 2007.

Table 6. Length range of fish collected from ponds within the BBNPP site duringNovember 2007.

Table 7. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three ponds locatedwithin the proposed BBNPP site, July 2008.

Table 8. Length range of fish collected from ponds within the BBNPP site during July2008.

Table 9. Number and percent composition of fish collected within the proposedBBNPP site including three stations in the North Branch Canal, Canal outlet,and in a Marshland adjacent to the Canal, April 2010.

Table 10. Length range of fish collected from the North Branch Canal, Canal outlet, andMarshland adjacent to Canal, April 2010.

Table 11. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three stations onWalker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 located within the proposedBBNPP site on November 8, 2007.

Table 12. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1during Fall 2007.

Table 13. Number and percent composition of fish collected from five stations onWalker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 located within and downstream ofthe proposed BBNPP site on April 7 and 8, 2008.

Table 14. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1during April 2008.

11


Table 15. Number and percent composition of fish collected from five stations onWalker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 located within and downstream ofthe proposed BBNPP site, July 2008.

Table 16. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1during July 2008.

Table 17. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at Station 1 in Walker Run on November 8, 2007.

Table 18. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at Station 2 in Walker Run on November 8, 2007.

Table 19. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at Station 1 in Walker Run on April 7, 2008.




Table 23. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at Station 1 in Walker Run on July 14, 2008.





Table 28. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at in Unnamed Tributary No. 5 on July 16, 2008.

Table 29. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected witha kick net at in Unnamed Tributary No. 3 on July 16, 2008.

iii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the proposed BBNPP site.

Figure 2. Location of the pond biota collection stations.

Figure 3. Location of the North Branch Canal, Canal outlet, and Marshland biotasampling stations.

Figure 4. Location of biota sample stations on Walker Run and the unnamed tributaries.

iv


Record of Revisions

Revision Date Pages/Sections Changed Brief Description

000 September All Initial release2008

001 July 2010 Page 2 Added a paragraph describing thereason for the report revision.

001 July 2010 Pages 2 to 4, and 10 to 11 Added a description of 2010 samplingeffort and the results.

001 July 2010 Figures Inserted new figure 3 and changed oldfigure 3 to figure 4.

001 July 2010 Figures Moved location of BBNPP as part ofthe Plot Plan Change Project andchanged boundary from OCA toBBNPP/SSES Site Boundary and forFigure 1 added potential areas ofdisturbance boundary.

001 July 2010 Tables Inserted tables 9 and 10, requirednumber adjustment for all tables thatfollow.

002 August 2010 Record of Revisions Table 4 was inserted in Rev. 1 but notindicated in Record of Revisions.

002 August 2010 Page 2 Modified text in regard to 2010 survey.

002 August 2010 Pages 3 to 6 Text inserted in regard to samplingmethods for fish andmacroinvertebrates.

002 August 2010 References Added reference for Murphy and Willis(1996).

003 November Figures Revised boundary from SSES/BBNPP2010 Site Boundary to BBNPP Project

Boundary which included addition ofthe cemetery cut-out.

003 November Figure 4, Tables Revised stream names to conform with2010 1,2,11,12,13,14,15,16, and response to RAI AE 2.3-1.

28, Text

004 September Figure 1 Revised BBNPP project boundary and2011 potential area of disturbance per

changes related to disposal of excesscut material.

004 September Figures 2-4 Revised BBNPP project boundary per2011 changes related to disposal of excess

cut material.

IRev.4


INTRODUCTION

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP) is proposed to be sited adjacent to the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Salem Township, Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania (Figure 1). Normandeau Associates, Inc. was contracted by AREVA NP,

Inc. to assess the aquatic communities of water bodies on and adjacent to the BBNPP

Site. The biological sampling effort focused on water bodies that occurred in the

potential areas of disturbance, although a selection of water bodies outside of this area

were sampled in order to account for potential downstream impacts.

Sampling was performed to determine the community composition of benthic

macroinvertebrates and fish inhabiting several ponds and small streams, as well as

North Branch Canal and adjacent water bodies, potentially to be affected by

construction of the plant. The aquatic biota sampling was performed under scientific

collector's permits issued by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC).

The initial aquatic biota surveys were performed as part of the overall environmental

surveys of the BBNPP site in 2007 and 2008. Thereafter, the site was expanded to

include several new parcels of property. Consequently, reconnaissance level field

studies of the new parcels were performed in 2010 to supplement the ecological survey

data previously obtained and reported in the 2008 report. The only new aquatic ecology

survey information obtained during the additional field studies was for the North Branch

Canal and adjacent water bodies. This revision includes the new data as well as

previously reported information.

Personnel

This fishery and macroinvertebrate report for the BBNPP site is the product of efforts

from many well-trained personnel. Field work was accomplished by field biologists

2Rev.4


Jayme Schaeffer, Charles Dix, and Matthew Williams under the direction of aquatic

scientist Bryan Lees, who also coordinated the laboratory processing of

macroinvertebrate samples at Normandeau's Stowe laboratory. Identification of the

macroinvertebrate samples was completed by Bryan Lees, Stacy Lathrop, and George

Christian. Melonie Ettinger, Brenda Strouse, and Connie Booz provided secretarial and

computer support for tables and text. Bryan Lees prepared the report, and Project

Manager, Paul Harmon, coordinated the efforts.

METHODS

Fish Collections

The objectives of fisheries sampling were to determine the species composition of the

fish community and the relative abundance of the species present. A variety of

standard fish sampling methods, e.g. as described in Murphy and Willis (1996), was

employed in this study. The sampling team deployed the specific sampling gear they

judged as most appropriate for each water body sampled.

Six ponds were surveyed for fish within the BBNPP site (Figure 2). Johnson's Pond,

Beaver Pond, Unnamed Pond 1, Farm Pond, and West Building Pond were surveyed

for fish during November 2007 and July 2008. Unnamed Pond 2 was surveyed for fish

during July 2008. The fish community was assessed using several gear types: a 4-ft x

8-ft flat seine, 12-ft jon boat outfitted with a single anode probe and an electrofishing

pram with a single anode probe. At each location the appropriate gear type was

selected based on access and pond depth. The small and shallow West Building Pond

was sampled with the seine. The large and shallow Farm Pond was sampled with the

seine in 2007 and with the towed electrofishing pram during 2008. The larger Beaver

Pond and Johnson's Pond were sampled with the 12-ft jon boat. The shallow Unnamed

Pond 1 was sampled with the electrofishing pram. Unnamed Pond 2 was too shallow to

seine (only a few inches of water present) so visual inspections were made to determine

if fish were present. Both electrofishing gears were powered by a Georator unit

3Rev.4


producing 230-volt DC current with output ranging from 2 to 5 amperes. For all gear

types an effort was made to sample the entire pond perimeter and cover all habitat

types including several transects across Johnson's Pond.

An original attempt at sampling the North Branch Canal occurred during the summer of

2008. However, excessive duckweed on the water surface as well as thick beds of

submerged aquatic vegetation made it impossible to effectively survey the fish

community. During April 2010 the fish communities of the North Branch Canal and

adjacent areas were surveyed using the12-ft jon boat outfitted with a single anode

probe or the electrofishing pram with a single anode probe. The water surface was

clear of vegetation and submerged vegetation was limited which allowed for effective

sampling. Surveys were completed at two stations within the maintained section of the

Canal (Stations 1 and 2), an unmaintained section of the Canal (Station 3), as well as

the Canal outlet, and a Marshland area adjacent to the Canal (Figure 3). Canal Stations

1 and 2 are hydrologically connected by a large culvert under Riverlands Road. The

Canal outlet is located at the downstream boundary of Canal Station 2 below the Canal

dam and it carries overflow from the Canal over the Canal dam a short distance into the

Susquehanna River. Canal Station 3 is hydrologically separated from Stations 1 and 2.

At each station within the Canal (Stations 1-3), the entire perimeter of the Canal was

surveyed along with several transects across the Canal. At Station 3 the entire

perimeter of the main Canal was sampled and a portion of open water adjacent to the

Canal. For the Canal outlet sampling was completed in the plunge pool formed by the

overflow from the Canal and within the channel. The marshland area adjacent to the

lower section of the unmaintained portion of the canal was also surveyed by sampling

the perimeter and several open-water transects.

Six stations were surveyed for fish in the Walker Run watershed both within and

downstream of the BBNPP site boundaries (Figure 4). Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were

located on the main stem of Walker Run and Station 3 was on Unnamed Tributary No.

1. Stations 1, 2, and 3 were surveyed during November 2007 and April and July 2008.

Stations 4 and 5 were surveyed during April and July 2008. Station 6 was surveyed

4Rev.4


during July 2008. Walker Run fish surveys were completed using the towed

electrofishing pram outfitted with a single or double anode probe, depending on the

width of the stream reach being surveyed. At each station a single electrofishing pass

was completed. Station length varied from 100 feet at Station 6 to 280 feet for Station

4. All captured fish were identified to species and enumerated; a subsample of each

species was measured for total length and then all fish were released.

In addition, three unnamed tributaries to the Susquehanna River were assessed during

July 2008 (Figure 4). Unnamed Tributary No. 4 was dry and no fish were present.

Unnamed Tributaries No. 5 and No. 3 were too small and overgrown with vegetation to

effectively survey for fish. However, visual inspections were made of both streams and

no fish were observed.

All surveys were performed in order to determine both the community composition and

relative abundance of fishes in each of the water bodies. Sampling gear was selected

to ensure that the most efficient gear type was being utilized for a given water body. All

gear types utilized in these surveys are commonly employed in fisheries surveys. A

scientific collector's permit was obtained from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission (PFBC) in order to collect and possess fishes and other aquatic organisms.

Stream Macroinvertebrates

All macroinvertebrate sampling was completed in order to determine both composition

and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates in each of the water bodies. The

macroinvertebrate sampling methodology employed standard, commonly used

approaches for sampling and processing benthic macroinvertebrates (Barbour et. al

1999). This standardized sampling approach aids in making comparisons among

stations and between years. N

Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from Stations 1 and 2 in Walker Run during

November 2007 and April and July 2008 and from Stations 4 and 5 during April and July

5Rev.4


2008. Benthic macroinvertebrates were also collected from Station 6 in Walker Run

during July 2008. Three unnamed tributaries (Unnamed Tributary No. 3, 4, and 5) to

the Susquehanna River were also surveyed during July 2008. Unnamed Tributary No.

4 was completely dry thus a benthic sample was not collected. A 500-micron mesh D-

frame kick net was utilized for the collections. A total of 1 minute of kicking at two or

three locations was completed for each station. Samples were collected from riffle

areas with cobble substrate, although limited cobble was present at Station 1. The

contents of each kick were composited into one sample. Each sample was labeled,

preserved in 70% isopropanol, and transported to Normandeau's laboratory for sorting

and identification. Each sample was completely sorted and abundant taxa (>200

specimens) were subsampled. All insects, except Chironomidae, were identified to

genus level. Non-insects were identified to genus or order level depending on the

particular group.

Pond/ Canal Macroinvertebrates

Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from North Branch Canal Station 1,

Johnson's Pond, Beaver Pond, and Unnamed Pond 1 during July 2008. A 500-micron

mesh D-frame kick net was utilized for the collections. A sample consisted of making

several net sweeps along the shoreline of each water body. Each sweep was

composited into a single sample at each location and preserved in 70% isopropanol,

and transported to Normandeau's laboratory for sorting and identification. A qualitative

sort of each sample was completed and most organisms were identified to order or

family.

Stream Site Descriptions

Walker Run is a second order cool water stream that flows through a section of the

proposed BBNPP site. The main stem of Walker Run flows south through the western

portion of the site and a secondary branch (Unnamed Tributary No. 1) flows west until

it's confluence with the main stem. Station 1 was the most downstream station within

6Rev.4


the site, spatially located below the confluence with Unnamed Tributary No. 1, on the

main stem of Walker Run. This section of the stream flowed through forested land with

average stream width of 11 ft and maximum depth of 1 ft. Bottom substrate was a mix

of silt and sand with some woody debris. Station 2 was located on the main stem of

Walker Run, upstream of Station 1 and Unnamed Tributary No. 1. This section of the

stream flowed through actively farmed fields and was overgrown with scrubby

vegetation and small trees. Average water depth was less than 1 ft, although several

deep pools were present, and stream width averaged 9 ft. Bottom substrate was

composed mainly of sand and large cobble. Station 3 was located on Unnamed

Tributary No. I to the main stem of Walker Run. At this location the stream flowed

through forested land, averaged 5 ft in width, and had limited flow with water depths

less than 1 ft. Stream substrate was comprised of a mixture of silt and clay. Station 4

was located downstream of Station 1, approximately 0.5 miles from the site boundary.

This section of the stream flowed through an active dairy farm with animal access to the

entire sample reach. Few trees were present along the stream bank with grasses being

the dominant cover type within the riparian corridor. Stream width averaged 16 feet and

depths varied from less than a foot to nearly 3 feet deep in one deep trough-like pool.

Substrate was composed mainly of large cobble with fine sediments in the depositional

areas. Station 5 was roughly 0.25 miles downstream of Station 4 and flowed through a

narrow strip of forested land. The stream was widest here averaging 21 feet across and

also had the steepest gradient. Bottom substrate was, composed of large cobble and no

pools were present within the reach. Station 6 was the most upstream station on the

main stem of Walker Run and it flowed along a maintained grassy area. The stream

bank was bordered by a narrow strip of shrubs and trees and stream width varied from

4 ft to 15 ft.

Unnamed Tributary No. 4 was located at the eastern corner of the site just downstream

of the boundary. It is a small intermittent stream that flowed through a forested patch of

land at the assessment location and was completely dry at the time of sampling.

Stream channel width ranged to 5 ft. Unnamed Tributary No. 5 was a small stream that

flowed in an easterly direction through the eastern portion of the site before it eventually

7Rev.4


entered Lake Took-a-While. It flowed through a mix of shrubs and grasses with stream

channel width ranging up to 4 ft. Unnamed Tributary No. 3 was located downstream of

the site, approximately 1/3 of a mile from the site boundary. The stream had limited

discharge during sampling and flowed through a narrow forested patch of land with

stream width ranging to 5 ft. It was mostly fed by a small impoundment along Confers

Lane and upstream of this point the stream channel was dry.

Habitat Assessments

Habitat assessments were performed using the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols

(RBP) for high gradient streams (Barbour et al. 1999). Assessments were completed

on Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 during April 2008 at Stations 1-5 and

during July 2008 at Station 6. The RBP evaluates and scores a total of ten parameters

on a 0 to 20 scale, with 200 being the highest total score possible. Each parameter is,

important in determining the quality of the in-stream and riparian habitat that influences

the structure and function of the aquatic community in the stream. Degraded habitat

conditions are considered one of the major stressors to aquatic communities and can

lead to alterations in natural aquatic assemblages.

Total habitat scores were similar for Stations 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Table 1), ranging from

144 to 166. For the most part each of these stations scored similarly for most of the

habitat parameters. The total score for Station 4 was 123. This station scored

significantly lower than the other stations for three parameters: bank stability, vegetative

protection, and riparian vegetative zone width. The low scores for these parameters are

a direct result of the use of the land area around the stream as pasture for dairy cows.

Water Quality

Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were measured during collections

at each of the six Walker Run watershed stations, in several of the ponds, and in the

Canal and adjacent areas. A Horiba U-1 0 multimeter was used to collect the in-situ

8Rev.4


water quality data. Most water quality parameters were similar among each of the

stream stations (Table 2). The only exception was conductivity in Unnamed Tributary

No. 1 (Station 3), which was approximately twice as high as any of the other stations.

Similarly, water quality among the ponds was comparable although conductivity was

much lower for Johnson's Pond than the other four ponds (Table 3). Water quality in

the Canal and adjacent areas was similar except for conductivity, which varied

considerably among the stations (Table 4).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fish

Pond Surveys 2007

No fish were collected in the West Building Pond or Unnamed Pond 1. Fish were

present within Johnson's, Beaver, and Farm ponds from which a total of 254 fish

representing seven species and one hybrid was collected (Table 5). Beaver Pond

yielded a total of 164 fish representing five species and one hybrid. Brown bullhead

was the dominant species within Beaver Pond, comprising, 61% of the catch. A total of

89 fish representing three species was collected from Johnson's Pond with bluegill

being numerically dominant, comprising 96% of the catch. A single creek chub was

collected from Farm Pond. Length ranges of fish collected in the ponds are given in

Table 6.

Pond Surveys 2008

No fish were collected from West Building Pond, Unnamed Pond 1, or Unnamed Pond

2. For the other three ponds (Beaver, Johnson's, Farm) a total of 356 fish representing

nine species and one hybrid was collected (Table 7). A total of 64 fish representing four

species and one hybrid was collected from Beaver Pond. The predominate species in

9Rev.4


Beaver Pond was brown bullhead, comprising 39.1% of the catch. Johnson's Pond

yielded a total of 240 fish representing three species and one hybrid with bluegill being

numerically dominant, comprising 85.8% of the catch. Fifty-two fish representing four

species were collected from Farm Pond with creek chub the predominant species,

comprising 82.7% of the catch. Length ranges of fish collected in the ponds are given in

Table 8.

The fish assemblages observed within Beaver Pond and Johnson's Pond were

characteristic of a typical warm-water pond in Pennsylvania (Cooper 1983). Most of the

species including largemouth bass, bluegill, and brown bullhead are commonly

recommended by extension agencies for stocking in small ponds in Pennsylvania (PSU

2000). In both ponds the predominant fish species were from the families

Centrarchidae (sunfishes) and Ictaluridae (catfishes). Several species within these two

families are common inhabitants of ponds throughout Pennsylvania. Beaver Pond had

the most balanced and diverse fish assemblage with both brown bullhead and green

sunfish being abundant. Three centrarchids were present in Johnson's Pond with

bluegill being abundant. Community composition was similar within both ponds during

Fall 2007 and Summer 2008. The Farm Pond fish assemblage was not representative

of a typical fish community for ponds in Pennsylvania. A majority of the species

collected in Farm Pond including creek chub, white sucker, and blacknose dace

normally inhabit streams and rivers and are not found in ponds (Cooper 1983). It is

probable that these fish were washed into Farm Pond during flood events that caused

Walker Run to overflow it's banks.

No rare, threatened, endangered, or species of special concern were collected.

North Branch Canal and adjacent areas 2010

Seven species of fish totaling 59 individuals were collected from three stations on the

North Branch Canal during the spring of 2010 (Table 9). Bluegill and green sunfish

10Rev.4


were the two numerically dominant species within the Canal, comprising 58% and 15%

of the total catch, respectively. Station 1 yielded four species and a total of 27

individuals with bluegill being the most abundant species. A total of five fish

representing two species was collected from Station 2. For Station 3, 27 individuals and

five species were collected with bluegill being numerically dominant. Length ranges of

fish collected in the Canal are given in Table 10.

A total of 160 individual fish representing 12 species and one hybrid was collected from

the Canal outlet during the spring of 2010 (Table 9). Golden shiner was the most

abundant species comprising 27% of the total catch. Other abundant species included

bluegill (21%), green sunfish (21%), and white sucker (16%). Length ranges of fish

collected in the Canal outlet are given in Table 10.

Four pumpkinseed sunfish were collected from the Marshland during the spring of 2010

(Table 9). No other fish were observed during the survey effort. Length ranges of fish

collected in the Marshland are given in Table 10.

The fish communities present within the Canal, Canal outlet, and Marshland were

similar to what would be expected for warmwater lentic waterbodies in eastern

Pennsylvania. The warmwater fish species composition of the Canal is similar to Lake

Took-a-While, a lake to which the Canal is hydrologically connected (Ecology III 2000).

The Canal outlet fish community was also comprised of warmwater species, although

several species characteristic of lotic systems (white sucker, creek chub, bluntnose

minnow) likely migrated upstream from the Susquehanna River. One unusual species

occurrence in the Canal outlet was the collection of a single brook stickleback (Culaea

inconstans). This species prefers cool, clear, heavily vegetated, spring fed creeks,

rivers, lakes, and ponds (PNHP 2007). The Canal is a warmwater aquatic system that

is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for maintenance of brook stickleback populations.

It is probable that the single brook stickleback that was collected was either introduced

through human action (i.e. bait bucket or aquarium fish) or the fish migrated upstream

from the Susquehanna River into the Canal outlet. Brook stickleback are considered a

11Rev.4


rare but locally abundant species found in the Ohio, Erie, and Susquehanna River

watersheds of Pennsylvania (Cooper 1983). The species is currently considered a

candidate species in Pennsylvania (PA Code 1991). No previous occurrences of the

brook stickleback are known from the Susquehanna River or adjacent waterbodies in

the vicinity of BBNPP (Ecology III 1995, 2000).

Walker Run Fall 2007

Seven species of fish and one hybrid totaling 299 individuals were collected from three

stations on Walker Run during the fall of 2007 (Table 11). Station 1 yielded 151

individual fish of five species with blacknose dace and creek chub being the numerically

dominant species. A total of 56 fish representing five species was collected from

Station 2. Species composition and relative abundance was similar for Stations 1 and 2

with blacknose dace and creek chub being co-dominant. For Station 3, 92 fish

representing five species and one hybrid were collected with creek chub being

numerically dominant, comprising 70% of the catch. Length ranges of fish collected in

Walker Run during the fall of 2007 are given in Table 12.

Walker Run Spring 2008

Ten species of fish totaling 857 individuals were collected from five stations on Walker

Run during the spring of 2008 (Table 13). A total of 112 individuals representing six

species was collected from Station 1; Station 2 yielded 101 individuals and four species

of fish. Blacknose dace was numerically dominant at Stations 1 and 2 comprising

43.8% and 45.5% of the total, respectively. For station 3 a total of four species and 50

individual fish was collected with creek chub being dominant, comprising 32.0% of the

total. Station 4 yielded 371 individuals and nine species and at Station 5 a total of six

species and 223 individuals was collected. The dominant species at Station 4 was

white sucker, comprising 40.7% of the total and for Station 5 blacknose dace was

numerically dominant, comprising 83.4% of the collection. Length ranges of fish

collected in Walker Run during the spring of 2008 are given in Table 14.

12Rev.4


Walker Run Summer 2008

Ten species and one hybrid fish totaling 921 individuals were collected from six stations

in Walker Run during July 2008 (Table 15). Station 4 yielded the greatest number of

individuals (430) and the most species (9). The fewest number of fish (51) and species

(4) were collected from Station 3. Blacknose dace, creek chub, and white sucker were

among the predominate species at most of the stations. Length ranges of fish collected

in Walker Run during the summer of 2008 are given in Table 16.

The fish assemblage observed in Walker Run was characteristic of similar-sized

coolwater streams throughout eastern Pennsylvania (Fairchild 1998, Horwitz 2008). A

mixture of both coldwater and warmwater species was collected throughout the

watershed. Walker Run is currently designated as a cold water fishery (PA 1980). This

designation indicates that in Walker Run the maintenance or propagation, or both, of

fish species including the family Salmonidae occurs. This designation was confirmed

with the collection of brown trout which are in the family Salmonidae.

In Walker Run a general trend of increasing species diversity and abundance was

observed at stations that were farther downstream, which is a common characteristic of

smaller headwater streams. Similar species composition and abundance was observed

during the fall, spring, and summer sampling events. Although brown trout was present

during the spring and summer but not the fall sampling effort. Seasonal movement of

brown trout within the stream most likely explains their presence during spring and

summer and not during the fall. The brown trout appeared to be naturally reproduced,

wild fish. Trout are not currently stocked in Walker Run by the PFBC.

Four species that were relatively abundant throughout the surveyed locations in Walker

Run were blacknose dace, creek chub, white sucker, and tessellated darter. The

13Rev.4


abundance of blacknose dace and creek chub in Walker Run offers an important forage

base for brown trout and other predatory fish. Blacknose dace distribution is

widespread in Pennsylvania and nearly every stream in Pennsylvania contains

blacknose dace (Cooper 1983). Additionally, white sucker, creek chub, and tessellated

darter are also widely distributed throughout Pennsylvania.

Qualitative collections of crayfish were completed while electrofishing in the lower

reaches of Walker Run during summer 2008 (Stations 4 and 5) Crayfish were

extremely abundant and only one species was collected, Orconectes obscurus.

Another species, Cambarus bartonii bartonil, however, was collected in Walker Run

benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

No rare, threatened, endangered, or species of special concern were collected nor

would any be expected to occur in Walker Run.

Macroi nvertebrates

Ponds/Canal 2008

The macroinvertebrate communities within the ponds and Canal were similar. In all four

water bodies Chironomidae (midges) was the most abundant group. Other common

taxa within the ponds and Canal include Odonata, Hemiptera, Oligochaeta, and

Gastropoda. In two of the ponds, Johnson's and Beaver, the mayfly Caenis was

present. This species commonly inhabits lentic habitats. No other Ephemeroptera,

Trichoptera, or Plecoptera (EPT) were identified. In addition, no mussels were

observed in any of the water bodies.

Walker Run Fall 2007

14Rev.4


A combined total of 2,510 macroinvertebrates representing 66 taxa was collected from

Walker Run during the fall of 2007 (Tables 17 and 18). Diptera was the dominant group

both numerically (48.1%) and by the number of taxa (n=15). The EPT group made up a

large proportion of the total taxa and was represented by 30 genera.

A total of 1,349 macroinvertebrates representing 46 taxa was collected from Station 1

(Table 17). Diptera was the dominant group at Station 1 comprising 73.0% of the

macroinvertebrates; most of the dipterans were in the family Chironomidae. Diptera

was also the most diverse group with 13 taxa being collected. The EPT grouping

comprised 12.3% of the macroinvertebrates with a total of 12 taxa present from this

group. The caddisfly Cheumatopsyche was the most abundant EPT taxon representing

4.3% of the macroinvertebrates.

At Station 2 a total of 1,161 macroinvertebrates from 52 taxa was collected (Table 18).

Of these, two groups were essentially co-dominant, Ephemeroptera and Coleoptera

comprising 33.6% and 31.4% of the total, respectively. Diptera were also fairly

numerous accounting for 19.2% of the macroinvertebrates. The combined contribution

of the EPT group accounted for 45.9% of the macroinvertebrates and over half of the

total taxa (n= 26 taxa). The mayfly Stenonema was the most abundant EPT taxon

comprising 22.8% of the macroinvertebrates.

Walker Run Springq 2008

A total of 15,228 organisms and 69 taxa was collected from Walker Run during Spring

2008 (Tables 19-22). Similar to fall 2007, Diptera was the dominant group both

numerically (81.1%) and by number of taxa (15). The EPT group comprised a large

number of the total taxa with 27 genera identified.

For Station1 a total of 1,510 organisms and 44 taxa was collected (Table 19). Diptera

was most abundant comprising 65.2% of organisms with most of the dipterans being in

the family Chironomidae. The EPT group was also common, comprising 25.7% of

15Rev.4


macroinvertebrates. The mayfly Eurylophella was the dominant EPT taxon, comprising

18.1% of the macroinvertebrates.

At Station 2 a total of 43 taxa and 3,765 organisms was collected. Diptera was the

dominant group accounting for 60.0% of organisms (Table 20). The blackfly

Prosimulium was the most numerous taxon comprising 53.8% of all organisms. The

EPT group accounted for 22.4% of organisms and 21 taxa. Several mayflies were

numerous with Ephemerella being the dominant EPT taxon, accounting for 6.2% of all

organisms.

A total of 2,481 organisms and 35 taxa was collected from Station 4 (Table 21). Diptera

was the predominate group comprising 72.7% of all organisms. Of these,

Chironomidae was the dominant organism accounting for 49.5% of the total. The EPT

group accounted for 22.3% of organisms and 13 taxa with the mayfly Ephemerella

being most numerous at 11.0%.

At the most downstream location, Station 5, a total of 7,472 organisms and 24 taxa was

collected (Table 22). The blackfly, Prosimulium, was the predominate organism

accounting for 83.9% of the total. The EPT group comprised 4.9% of the total with nine

taxa from the group being identified.

Walker Run Summer 2008

A total of 7,247 organisms and 59 taxa was collected from Walker Run during the

summer of 2008 (Tables 23-27). Similar to both fall 2007 and spring 2008, Diptera was

the most abundant group both numerically (30.9%) and by number of taxa (13). The

EPT group comprised a large number of the total taxa with 22 being identified.

At Station 1 a total 1,233 organisms and 36 taxa was collected (Table 23). Diptera was

the most abundant group comprising 44.3% of all organisms, with Chironomidae

accounting for a large proportion of the group at 41.8%. The EPT group accounted for

16Rev.4


28.5% of all organism and 12 taxa with the caddisfly Cheumatopsyche being most

numerous at 13.4%.

For Station 2 a total of 689 organisms and 31 taxa was collected (Table 24). Diptera

was the most abundant group comprising 41.9% of organisms with most of the

dipterans being in the family Chironomidae. The EPT group was also common,

comprising 33.1% of the macroinvertebrates and 13 taxa. The mayfly Baetis was the

dominant EPT taxon comprising 12.5% of all organisms.

Station 4 yielded a total of 1,796 organisms and 36 taxa (Table 25). Trichoptera was

the most abundant group, comprising 47.1% of all organisms. A majority of the

trichopterans were Cheumatopsyche (29.7%) and Hydropsyche (11.1%). Overall, the

EPT group comprised 54.0% of all organisms with the afformentioned Cheumatopsyche

being the most abundant taxon within the group. A total of 12 EPT taxa was collected.

At Station 5 a total of 774 organisms and 33 taxa was collected (Table 26). Trichoptera

was the most abundant group, comprising 44.1% of all organisms with Chimarra being

the most numerous organism in the group (24.9%). A total of 14 EPT taxa was

collected and this group comprised 63.8% of all organisms.

Station 6, the most upstream station, yielded 2,755 organisms and 34 taxa (Table 27).

Ephemeroptera was the dominant group accounting for 33.7% of all organisms with

Baetis being the most numerous organism in the group (23.8%). A total of 13 EPT taxa

was collected which comprised 60.9% of all organisms.

The macroinvertebrate community present in Walker Run was diverse and

representative of a small coolwater stream in eastern Pennsylvania. A total of 88 taxa

was collected. Almost half (43) of these taxa were within the EPT group. Taxa within

this group are generally considered intolerant to most types of water pollution and

17Rev.4


habitat degradation. The benthic macroinvertebrates present in Walker Run were

indicative of a healthy, clean-water stream community.

For the most part, species abundance and composition was similar among stations and

between seasons. Most of the differences were related to the heterogeneous or"patchy" distribution-of macroinvertebrates. However, some more specific differences

were evident. Some of the seasonal differences were related to the life history

characteristics of benthic macroinvertebrates. For example, as a part of the life history

of many mayfly species there is an egg diapause. This results in many species being in

egg stage during summer and not hatching until fall; therefore, these species would not

be collected in benthos samples. Additionally, seasonal differences in abundance can

be related to "blooms" of organisms. This phenomenon occurred at Stations 2, 4, and 5

during the spring when large numbers of the blackfly Prosimulium were collected. Most

species within this genus mature in the spring and can be highly abundant if habitat

conditions are especially favorable (Adler 1986). These habitat conditions include swift

currents for feeding and stable, size-specific substrate for attachment. Both of these

parameters were present at Stations 2, 4, and 5 and appear to explain the large

abundance of blackfly in each of the areas.

No rare, threatened, endangered, or species of special concern were collected or are

thought to occur within the Walker Run watershed.

Unnamed Tributaries

Unnamed Tributary No. 5

A total of 8,161 organisms and 16 taxa was collected from Unnamed Tributary No. 5

(Table 28). The macroinvertebrate community was dominated by the amphipod

Gammarus which comprised 95.9% of all organisms. A single EPT taxon, the mayfly

Baetis, was collected which comprised 0.3% of the collection.

18Rev.4


Unnamed Tributary No. 3

A total of 444 organisms and 17 taxa was collected from Unnamed Tributary No. 3

(Table 29). Diptera was the dominant group comprising 73.4% of all organisms with

Chironomidae accounting for 52.3% of the dipterans. The EPT group comprised 18.9%

of all organisms and a total of 6 taxa was collected.

19Rev.4


LITERATURE CITED

Adler, P. and K. Kim. 1986. The Black Flies of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press, University Park, PA.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapidbioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton,benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency;Office of Water, Washington, D. C.

Cooper, E. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. ThePennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.

Ecology III. 1995. Environmental Studies in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SteamElectric Station, 1994 Annual Report. Prepared for PPL Susquehanna, LLC,June 1995.

Ecology III. 2000. Biological Survey of Lake Took-a-While: A Report on the Status ofthe Warm Water Sport and Forage Fisheries, June 2000.

Fairchild, G., R. Horwitz, D. Nieman, and M. Boyer. 1998. Spatial variation andhistorical change in fish communities of the Schuylkill River drainage, southeastPennsylvania. American Midland Naturalist. Volume 139, April 1998, Pages282-29.

Horwitz, R., T. Johnson, P. Overbeck, T. O'Donnell, W. Hession, and B. Sweeney.2008. Effects of riparian vegetation and watershed urbanization on fishes instreams of the Mid-Atlantic Piedmont (USA). Journal of the American WaterResources Association. Volume 44, June 2008, Pages 724-741.

Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

PA Code. 1980. Pa Code § 93, Designated Water Uses and Water Quality Criteria,Amended 2005, Website:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.3.html, Date accessed:August 8, 2008.

PA Code. 1991. Pa Code §75.3, Candidate Species, Amended 2010, Website:http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter75/s75.3.html, Date accessed:June 7, 2010.

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Fact Sheet: Brook stickleback, Website

20Rev.4


http://www.naturalheritage.state.Pa.us/factsheets/1 1386.pdf, Date accessed June7,2010.

Pennsylvania State University. 2000. Management of fish ponds in Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences, AgriculturalResearch and Cooperative Extension

21Rev.4

Table 1. Habitat assessment1 summary for six stations located on Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1.

StationHabitat Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 6

Epifaunal Substrate/Available Cover

Embeddedness

Velocity/Depth regime

Sediment Deposition

Channel Flow Status

Channel Alteration

Frequency of Riffles

Bank Stability

Vegetative Protection

Riparian VegetativeZone Width

15 17 14 17 18 15

15

12

12

19

19

16

18

15

16

19

16

16

76

66

4

4

150

14

9

14

19

19

14

88

88

8

8

151

15

15

12

19

17

16

22

22

2

2

123

16

13

17

19

19

18

89

99

4

7

166

15

15

16

16

15

16

7

6

66

6

5

144

Left BankRight Bank

Left BankRight Bank

Left BankRight Bank

77

55

9

9

150Total Score

U.S. EPA. 1999. Rapid Biooassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and

Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish.

Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002.(http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/techmon. html)

Table 2. Water quality data collected from Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1during Fall 2007 and Spring and Summer 2008.

StationSeason Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fall 2007Temperature (°C) 5.2 6.2 6pH 6.6 6.8 6.7Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 11.5 11.2 11.1Conductivity (pS/cm) 127 95 334

Spring 2008Temperature (°C) 8.8 9.3 11.2 8.3 10.6pH 6.5 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.6Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 11.8 11.7 11.2 12 12.7Conductivity (pS/cm) 80 63 158 81 81

Summer 2008

Temperature (°C) 20.5 21.3 22.4 22.7 24.7 24.1pH 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.3Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 7 8.2 7 8.4Conductivity (ptS/cm) 86 80 195 85 81 70

Table 3. Water quality data collected from the ponds during Fall 2007 and Summer 2008.

PondSeason Parameter West Building Beaver Johnson's Farm Unnamed 1

Fall 2007Temperature (°C) 5.2 7.1 8.5 9.0 5.4pH 7.2 7.5 7.2 6.2 6.1Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 10.6 14.2 11.1 10.5 10.9Conductivity (pS/cm) 261 426 35 110 93

Spring 2008Temperature (°C) 25.0 25.7 26.0 23.9pH 7.1 6.0 6.0 6.3Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 6.8 7.2 - 7.1Conductivity (pS/cm) 245 35 83 109

Table 4. Water quality data collected from the Canal and adjacent areas during Spring 2010.

CanalSeason Parameter Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Outlet Marshland

Spring 2010Temperature (0C) 17.9 13.6 8.6 13.3 9.4pH 7.9 7.2 6.2 7.1 6.1Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 9.0 9.1 4.9 9.3 6.9Conductivity (pS/cm) 728 672 309 644 191

Table 5. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three ponds located within the proposed BBNPP site,November 8, 2007. -

Beaver Pond Johnson's Pond Farm PondCommon name Scientific name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 5 3 85 96Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 100 61Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 1 1 1 100Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 1Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 48 29Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 3 3Sunfish hybrid Lepomis sp. 9 5White crappie Pomoxis annularis 1 1

Total number of organisms 164 89 1Total number of species' 5 3 1

Note that no fish were collected from either the West Building Pond or Unnamed Pond1excludes sunfish hybrid

Table 6. Length range of fish collected from ponds within the BBNPP site duringNovember 2007.

Total Length (mm)Beaver Pond Johnson's Pond Farm Pond

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum MaximumTaxon

White crappie 89Bluegill 78 98 42 116Golden shiner 101Creek chub 55Green sunfish 36 120Largemouth bass 89 341Brown bullhead 64 250Sunfish hybrid 75 91

Table 7. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three ponds located within the proposedBBNPP site, July 2008.

Beaver Pond Johnson's Pond Farm PondCommon name Scientific name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus 4 7.7Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1 1.6 206 85.8Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 25 39.1Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 43 82.7Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 17 26.6 3 5.8Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 20 31.3Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 23 9.6Sunfish hybrid Lepomis sp. 1 1.6 4 1.7White crappie Pomoxis annularis 7 2.9White sucker Catostomus commersoni 2 3.8

Total number of organisms 64 240 52Total number of species1 4 3 4

Note that no fish were collected from either the West Building Pond, Unnamed Pond, or Unnamed Pond 21excludes sunfish hybrid

Table 8. Length range of fish collected from ponds within the BBNPP site during July 2008.

Total Length (mm)Beaver Pond Johnson's Pond Farm Pond

Taxon Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

White crappie 120 190Bluegill 75 30 160Golden shiner 32 125 27Creek chub 21 112Blacknose dace 22 40Green sunfish 54 145Largemouth bass 40 355Brown bullhead 80 225Sunfish hybrid 95 140 230White sucker 87 134

Table 9. Number and percent composition of fish collected within the proposed BBNPP site including three stations in the NorthBranch Canal, the Canal outlet, and in a Marshland adjacent to the Canal, April 2010.

Canal station 1 Canal station 2 Canal station 3 Canal outlet Marshland TotalCommon Name Scientific Name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

black crappie

bluegillbluntnose minnowbrook stickleback

brown bullhead

chain pickerelcommon carpcreek chubfathead minnow

golden shinergreen sunfishlargemouth bass

pumpkinseedspotfin shinersunfish hybrid

white suckeryellow bullhead

Pomoxis nigromaculatusLepomis macrochirus

Pimephales notatus

Culaea inconstans

Ameiurus nebulosus

Esox niger

Cyprinus carpio

Semotilus atromaculatus

Pimephales promelas

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Lepomis cyanellus

Micropterus salmoides

Lepomis gibbosus

Cyprinella spiloptera

Lepomis sp.

Catostomus commersoni

Ameiurus natalis

114 52 4 80 16

4

59

1 4

34 218 51 1

2 1

1 12 1

2 143 27

34 21

6 41 1

1 1

25 16

1

538-1

21

1

22

8294

4 100 171

1143

92

337 2

77

26

2 7 1 20

Total number of organisms

Total number of species'

27

4

5

2

27

5

160

12

4

1

148

16

IHybrid excluded from species total

Table 10. Length range of fish collected from the North Branch Canal, Canal outlet, and Marshland adjacent to Canal, April 2010.

Total Length (mm)Canal station 1 Canal station 2 Canal station 3

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum MaximumTaxonbrown bullheadbluntnose minnowwhite suckercommon carpchain pickerelfathead minnowpumpkinseedgreen sunfishsunfish hybridbluegilllargemouth bassgolden shinerblack crappiecreek chubspotfin shinerbrook sticklebackyellow bullhead

Canal outlet MarshlandMinimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

58 7157 7751160

95

157

97 15757 124

173321

52444171

37

7277118

187

83 112

94296

123 147 5893

175302

72 117125

487945

58

73 244 83

Table 11. Number and percent composition of fish collected from three stations on Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1 located within the proposed BBNPP site, November 8, 2007.

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3Common name Scientific name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus 59 39 17 30 3 3Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 7 8Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 46 30 18 32 64 70Fallfish Semotilus corporalis 22 15 1 2Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 2 4 10 11Sunfish hybrid Lepomis sp. 4 4Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 4 3White sucker Catostomus commersoni 20 13 18 32 4 4

Total number of organisms 151 56 92Total number of species1 5 5 6

1excludes sunfish hybrid

Table 12. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1 during November 2007.

Total Length (mm)Minimum MaximumTaxon

Blacknose dace 38 81Bluegill 62 79Creek chub 36 143Fallfish 47 133Green sunfish 39 83Tessellated darter 61 71White sucker 36 151

Table 13. Number and percent composition of fish collected from five stations on Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 located within and downstream ofthe proposed BBNPP site, April 7 and 8, 2008.

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 - Station 4 Station 5Common name Scientific name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Blacknose daceBluegillBrown troutCreek chubFallfishGreen sunfishLongnose dacePumpkinseedTessellated darterWhite sucker

Rhinichthys atratulus 49 43.8Lepomis macrochirusSalmo trutta 1 0.9Semotilus atromaculatus 43 38.4Semotilus corporalisLepomis cyanellus 1 0.9Rhinichthys cataractaeLepomis gibbosusEtheostoma olmstedi 5 4.5Catostomus commersoni 13 11.6

46 45.5

3 3.032 31.7

11 22.0

16 32.0

9 18.0

14 28.0

39 10.5 186 83.41 0.3

4 1.1 2 0.999 26.7 16 7.223 6.21 0.3

15 6.71 0.3

52 14.0151 40.7

2 0.92 0.920 19.8

Total number of organismsTotal number of species

1126

1014

504

3719

2236

Table 14. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1 during April 2008.

Length (mm)Taxon Minimum Maximum

Blacknose dace 30 80Bluegill 66Brown trout 102 295Creek chub 37 136Fallfish 52 168Green sunfish 46 47Longnose dace 46 105Pumpkinseed 52Tessellated darter 31 65White sucker 43 271

Table 15. Number and percent composition of fish collected from five stations on Walker Run and Unnamed Tributary No. 1 located within and downstream ofthe proposed BBNPP site, July 2008.

Station 1 1Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6

Common name Scientific name Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus 52 41.6 8 10.0 30 58.8 27 6.3 112 68.3 34 47.9Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1 0.8 1 0.2 1 0.6Brown trout Salmo trutta 1 1.3 3 0.7 1 0.6 9 12.7

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 62 49.6 21 26.3 17 33.3 81 18.8 22 13.4 7 9.9.Fallfish Semotilus corporalis 1 0.8 3 3.8 13 3.0 2 2.8Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 1 0.8 3 3.8 1 2.0 36 8.4 4 2.4Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 1 0.2Sunfish hybrid Lepomis sp. 1 0.6Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae 15 9.1Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 4 3.2 87 20.2White sucker Catostomus commersoni 4 3.2 44 55.0 3 5.9 181 42.1 8 4.9 19 26.8

Total number of organisms 125 80 51 430 164 71Total number of species 7 6 4 9 7 5

Isample location downstream of original sample boundary

Table 16. Length range of fish collected in Walker Run andUnnamed Tributary No. 1 during July 2008.

Total Length (mm)Taxon Minimum Maximum

Blacknose dace 25 66Bluegill 54 67Brown trout 60 297Creek chub 45 176Fallfish, 65 225Green sunfish 53 85Largemouth bass 50

Longnose dace 54 106Tessellated darter 45 64White sucker 33 270

Table 17. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net at Station I in Walker Run onNovember 8, 2007.

Total Number Percent of TotalGroup Taxon Group Taxon Group Taxon

OLIGOCHAETA 5 5 0.4 0.4CRUSTACEA 2 0.1

Amphipoda 1 0.1Cambarus 1 0.1

PLECOPTERA 5 0.4Allocapnia 4 0.3Taeniopteryx 1 0.1

EPHEMEROPTERA 86 6.4Acerpenna 12 0.9Eurylophella 14 1.0Paraleptophlebia 6 0.4Stenonema 54 4.0

TRICHOPTERA 74 5.5

Cheumatopsyche 58 4.3Chimarra 1 0.1Hydatophylax 8 0.6Hydropsyche 4 0.3Neophylax 2 0.1Nyctiophylax 1 0.1

COLEOPTERA 136 10.1Anchytarsus 1 0.1Dubiraphia 111 8.2Ectopria 1 0.1Helichus 1 0.1Optioservus 6 0.4Oulimnius 5 0.4Promoresia 5 0.4Stenelmis 6 0.4

DIPTERA 985 73.0Alluaudomyia 7 0.5Antocha 7 0.5Bezzia 7 0.5Chelifera 2 0.1Chironomidae 847 62.8

Table 17. Continued.

Total Number Percent of Total

Group Taxon Group Taxon Group Taxon

DIPTERA (continued)Chrysops 11 0.8Culicoides 7 0.5Dicranota 2 0.1

Hemerodromia 2 0.1

Hexatoma 5 0.4Probezzia 8 0.6

Prosimulium 7 0.5

Sphaeromias 73 5.4MOLLUSCA 21 1.6

Ferrissia 7 0.5Physa 1 0.1Musculium 13 1.0

OTHER 35 2.6Acariformes 16 1.2Nematoda 2 0.1Aeshnidae 2 0.1

Calopterygidae 2 0.1Gomphidae 7 0.5

Nigronia 4 0.3Sialis 2 0.1

TOTAL 1,349 1,349 100 100

Table 18. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net at Station 2 in Walker Run onNovember 8, 2007.


CRUSTACEACambarus 4 4 0.3 0.3

PLECOPTERA 30 2.6Acroneuria 6 0.5Agnetina 1 0.1Leuctra 1 0.1Paracapnia 1 0.1Pteronarcys 1 0.1Sweltsa 12 1.0Toeniopteryx 8 0.7

EPHEMEROPTERA 390 33.6Acentrella 1 0.1Boetis 1 0.1Acerpenna 6 0.5Ephemera 1 0.1Ephemerella 14 1.2Eurylophella 46 4.0Leptophlebia 1 0.1Paraleptophlebia 49 4.2Serratella 5 0.4Stenacron 1 0.1Stenonema 265 22.8

TRICHOPTERA 113 9.7Cheumatopsyche 68 5.9Chimarra 25 2.2Dolophilodes 1 0.1Hydropsyche 2 0.2Lype 2 0.2Micrasema 4 0.3Neophylax 8 0.7Polycentropus 3 0.3

COLEOPTERA 364 31.4Anchytarsus 16 1.4Dubiraphia 2 0.2Optioservus 67 5.8Oulimnius 239 20.6




COLEOPTERA (continued)

Promoresia 34 2.9

Stenelmis 6 0.5

DIPTERA 223 19.2

Antocha 8 0.7

Chironomidae 172 14.8

Dicranota 15 1.3

Hemerodromia 2 0.2

Palpomyia group 8 0.7

Pericoma 1 0.1

Pilaria 1 0.1

Probezzia 1 0.1

Prosimulium 14 1.2

Tipula 1 0.1

MOLLUSCA 16 1.4

Ferrissia 2 0.2

Physa 4 0.3

Pisidium 10 0.9

OTHER

Prostoma 21 1 1.8 0.1

Tricladida 1 0.1

Aeshnidae 1 0.1

Gomphidae 12 1.0

Nigronia 5 0.4

Sialis 1 0.1

TOTAL 1,161 1,161 100 100

Table 19. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net at Station 1 in Walker Run on April 7, 2008.



Cambarus 2 0.1PLECOPTERA 6 0.4

Amphinemura 2 0.1Isoperla 1 0.1Leuctra 2 0.1Prostoia 1 0.1

EPHEMEROPTERA 329 21.8Cingymula 8 0.5Epeorus 16 1.1Eurylophella 273 18.1Stenonema 32 2.1

TRICHOPTERA 53 3.5Brachycentrus 1 0.1Cheumatopsyche 30 2.0Chimarra 1 0.1Hydropsyche 3 0.2

Lepidostoma 1 0.1Neophylax 8 0.5Oecetis 1 0.1Pycnopsyche 7 0.5Rhyacophila 1 0.1

COLEOPTERA 44 2.9Dubiraphia 28 1.9Helichus 1 0.1Optioservus 9 0.6Oulimnius 5 0.3Promoresia 1 0.1

DIPTERA 984 65.2Antocha 2 0.1Bezzia 1 0.1Chironomidae 752 49.8Chrysops 1 0.1Dicranota 3 0.2




DIPTERA (continued)Pilaria 1 0.1Probezzia 4 0.3Prosimulium 162 10.7

Sphaeromias 7 0.5Stegoptema 48 3.2Tipula 3 0.2

MOLLUSCA 31 2.1Ferrissia 1 0.1Physa 3 0.2Musculium 15 1.0Pisidium 12 0.8

OTHER 23 1.5

Acariformes 5 0.3Nematoda 8 0.5Aeshnidae 1 0.1

Gomphidae 6 0.4Nigronia 3 0.2

TOTAL 1,510 1,510 100 100




Amphipoda 1 <0.1Cambarus 1 <0.1

PLECOPTERA 38 1.0Acroneuria 11 0.3Amphinemura 8 0.2Leuctra 8 0.2Isoperla 10 0.3Pteronarcys 1 <0.1

EPHEMEROPTERA 766 20.3Baetis 117 3.1Cinygmula 136 3.6Ephemerella 234 6.2Epeorus 198 5.3Isonychia 9 0.2Stenonema 27 0.7Serratella 45 1.2

TRICHOPTERA 42 1.1Cheumatopsyche 6 0.2Chimarra 15 0.4Diplectrona 2 0.1Hydropsyche 7 0.2Leucotrichia 1 <0.1Lype 1 <0.1Neophylax 4 0.1Polycentropus 1 <0.1Rhyacophila 5 0.1

COLEOPTERA 594 15.8Anchytarsus 3 0.1Curculionidae 1 <0.1Optioservus 84 2.2Oulimnius 434 11.5Promoresia 72 1.9



DIPTERA 2,259 60.0Antocha 1 <0.1

Chironomidae 228 6.1Clinocera 2Dicranota 2 0.1

Pilaria 1 <0.1Prosimulium 2,024 53.8

Tipula 1 <0.1MOLLUSCA 12 0.3

Pisidium 8 0.2Sphaerium 4 0.1

OTHER 37 1.0Acariformes 1 <0.1Nematoda 1 <0.1Cordulegastridae 8 0.i2Gomphidae 24 0.6Nigronia 3 0.1

TOTAL 3,765 3,765 100 100.0




Amphipoda 23 0.9PLECOPTERA 8 0.3

Amphinemura 8 0.3EPHEMEROPTERA 368 14.8

Cinygmula 8 0.3Ephemerella 272 11.0Epeorus 24 1.0Eurylophella 8 0.3Stenonema 56 2.3

TRICHOPTERA 132 5.3Cheumatopsyche 88 3.5Chimarra 8 0.3Diplectrona 1 <0.1Hydropsyche 23 0.9Micrasema 2 0.1Neophylax 1 <0.1Psychomyia 9 0.4

COLEOPTERA 55 2.2Anchytarsus 5 0.2Hydrobius 1 <0.1Optioservus 3 0.1Oulimnius 15 0.6Promoresia 8 0.3Stenelmis 23 0.9

DIPTERA 1,804 72.7Antocha 20 0.8

Chelifera 6 0.2Chironomidae 1,228 49.5Clinocera 7 0.3Dasyhelea 2 0.1Prosimulium 530 21.4

Sphaeromias 3 0.1Stegopterna 8 0.3

MOLLUSCA 5 0.2Pisidium 5 0.2




OTHER 15 0.6

Acariformes 4 0.2

Nematoda 4 0.2

Aeshnidae 1 <0.1

Gomphidae 3 0.1

Sialis 3 0.1

TOTAL 2,481 2,481 100 100



CRUSTACEA 1 <0.1Cambarus 1 <0.1

PLECOPTERA 2 <0.1Amphinemura 2 <0.1

EPHEMEROPTERA 288 3.9Ephemerella 288 3.9

TRICHOPTERA 76 1.0Cheumatopsyche 14 0.2Chimarra 23 0.3Hydropsyche 14 0.2Micrasema 3 <0.1Neophylax 19 0.3Polycentropus 1 <0.1Rhyacophila 2 <0.1

COLEOPTERA 17 0.2Ectopria 1Optioservus 6 0.1Oulimnius 5 0.1Promoresia 3 <0.1Stenelmis 2 <0.1

DIPTERA 6,634 88.8Antocha 2 <0.1Chironomidae 356 4.8Clinocera 2 <0.1Dicranota 1 <0.1Hemerodromia 1 <0.1Prosimulium 6,272 83.9

MOLLUSCA 4 0.1Pisidium 4 0.1

OTHER 450 6.0

Nematoda 449 6.0Nigronia 1 <0.1

TOTAL 7,472 7,472 100 100

Table 23. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net at Station 1 in Walker Run on July 14, 2008.



Cambarus 1 0.1Stygobromis 1 0.1

PLECOPTERA 38 3.1Acroneuria 5 0.4Leuctra 30 2.4Sweltsa 3 0.2

EPHEMEROPTERA 30 2.4Leptophlebiidae 1 0.1Eurylophella 6 0.5Serratella 1 0.1Stenonema 22 1.8

TRICHOPTERA 284 23.0Brachycentrus 12 1.0Cheumatopsyche 165 13.4Chimarra 13 1.1Hydropsyche 56 4.5Hydroptila 38 3.1

COLEOPTERA 210 17.0Anchytarsus 1 0.1Ectopria 4 0.3Optioservus 66 5.4Oulimnius 9 0.7Promoresia 71 5.8Stenelmis 59 4.8

DIPTERA 546 44.3Antocha 4 0.3Bezzia 1 0.1Chironomidae 516 41.8Dicranota 21 1.7Tipula 4 0.3

MOLLUSCA 8 0.6

Ferrissia 4 0.3Pisidium 4 0.3



Group, Taxon Group Taxon Group Taxon

OTHER 111 9.0

Acariformes 27 2.2

Argia 26 2.1

Boyeria 1 0.1

Nigronia 18 1.5

Prostoma 4 0.3

Sialis 2 0.2

Stylogomphus 4 0.3Veliidae 29 2.4

TOTAL 1,233 1,233 100 100




Cambarus 3 0.4PLECOPTERA 50 7.3

Acroneuria 5 0.7Leuctra 42 6.1Nemouridae 1 0.1Sweltsa 2 0.3

EPHEMEROPTERA 137 19.9Baetis 86 12.5Leptophlebiidae 4 0.6Eurylophella 15 2.2Serratella 3 0.4Stenacron 1 0.1Stenonema 28 4.1

TRICHOPTERA 41 6.0Cheumatopsyche 27 3.9Chimarra 4 0.6Hydropsyche 10 1.5

COLEOPTERA 93 13.5Optioservus 57 8.3Oulimnius 24 3.5Promoresia 6 0.9Stenelmis 6 0.9

DIPTERA 289 41.9Antocha 1 0.1Chironomidae 272 39.5Dicranota 4 0.6Hemerodromia 4 0.6Probezzia 1 0.1Simulium 7 1.0

MOLLUSCA 23 3.3Ferrissia 2 0.3Pisidium 21 3.0

Table 24 Continued.



OTHER 34 4.9Acariformes 9 1.3

Nematoda 4 0.6

Nigronia 4 0.6Stylogomphus 17 2.5

TOTAL 689 689 100 100




Cambarus 1 0.1Gammarus 56 3.1

PLECOPTERA 6 0.3Acroneuria 1 0.1Leuctra 5 0.3

EPHEMEROPTERA 118 6.6Leptophlebiidae 1 0.1Baetis 55 3.1Eurylophella 1 0.1Stenacron 3 0.2Stenonema 58 3.2

TRICHOPTERA 846 47.1Cheumatopsyche 533 29.7Chimarra 81 4.5Hydropsyche 200 11.1Hydroptila 16 0.9Psychomyia 16 0.9

COLEOPTERA 292 16.3Ectopria 19 1.1Macronychus 4 0.2Optioservus 71 4.0Oulimnius 9 0.5Promoresia 46 2.6Stenelmis 143 8.0

DIPTERA 408 22.7Antocha 15 0.8Chironomidae 348 19.4Dicranota 10 0.6Hemerodromia 2 0.1Hexatoma 1 0.1Limonia 3 0.2Simulium 26 1.4Tipula 3 0.2




MOLLUSCA 10 0.6

Ferrissia 5 0.3

Pisidium 5 0.3

OTHER 23 1.3

Acariformes 8 0.4Nigronia 2 0.1

Nematoda 1 0.1

Sialis 1 0.1

Veliidae 11 0.6

TOTAL 1,796 1,796 100 100


Total Number Percent of TotalGroup ,Taxon Group Taxon Group Taxon


Cambarus 2 0.3Gammarus 1 0.1

PLECOPTERA 22 2.8Acroneuria 18 2.3Leuctra 4 0.5

EPHEMEROPTERA 131 16.9Baetis 32 4.1Isonychia 30 3.9Leptophlebiidae 1 0.1Leucrocuta 1 0.1Stenonema 49 6.3Stenacron 18 2.3

TRICHOPTERA 341 44.1Cheumatopsyche 118 15.2Chimarra 193 24.9Dolophilodes 8 1.0Hydropsyche 13 1.7Psychomyia 8 1.0Rhyacophila 1 0.1

COLEOPTERA 74 9.6Ectopria 8 1.0Macronychus 1 0.1Optioservus 18 2.3Promoresia 2Psephenus 21 2.7Stenelmis 24 3.1

DIPTERA 191 24.7Antocha 8 1.0Atrichopogon 1 0.1Chironomidae 178 23.0Dicranota 1 0.1




DIPTERA (continued)

Molophilus 1 0.1

Tipula 2 0.3

MOLLUSCA 3 0.4

Ferrissia 3 0.4OTHER 7 0.9

Argia 1 0.1

Sialis 1 0.1

Veliidae 5 0.6

TOTAL 774 774 100 100




Cambarus 0.0Gammarus 15 0.5

PLECOPTERA 192 7.0Acroneuria 24 0.9Leuctra 144 5.2Sweltsa 24 0.9

EPHEMEROPTERA 928 33.7Leptophlebiidae 16 0.6Acentrella 32 1.2Baetis 656 23.8Eurylophella 16 0.6Serratella 112 4.1Stenonema 96 3.5

TRICHOPTERA 556 20.2Cheumatopsyche 280 10.2Dolophilodes 11 0.4Hydropsyche 264 9.6Neophylax 1 0.0

COLEOPTERA 232 8.4Helichus 24 0.9Optioservus 114 4.1Oulimnius 63 2.3Psephenus 6 0.2Promoresia 3 0.1Stenelmis 22 0.8

DIPTERA 808 29.3Antocha 17 0.6Chironomidae 656 23.8Chelifera 8 0.3Dicranota 82 3.0Hemerodromia 17 0.6Hexatoma 13 0.5Probezzia 8 0.3




DIPTERA (continued)

Simulium 5 0.2Tipula 2 0.1

OTHER 14 0.5Acariformes 2 0.1Boyeria 1 0.0Nigronia 2 0.1

Stylogomphus 9 0.3

TOTAL 2,755 2,755 100 100

w

Table 28. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net in Unnamed Tributary No. 5 on July 16, 2008.


OLIGOCHAETA 19 19 0.2 0.2CRUSTACEA 7,824 95.9

Cambarus 4 0.0Gammarus 7,820 95.8

EPHEMEROPTERA 27 0.3Baetis 27 0.3

COLEOPTERA 83 1.0Optioservus 47 0.6Oulimnius 34 0.4Tropistemus 2 0.0

DIPTERA 206 2.5Chironomidae 170 2.1Chtysops 1 0.0Dicranota 2 0.0Dixa 10 0.1Ephydridae 5 0.1Limonia 9 0.1Simulium 9 0.1

OTHER 2 0.0Dugesia 1 0.0Nematoda 1 0.0

TOTAL 8,161 8,161 100 100

Table 29. Number and percent composition of benthic macroinvertebratescollected with a kick net in Unnamed Tributary No. 3 on July 16, 2008.



Crangonyx 7 1.6PLECOPTERA 1 0.2

Leuctra 1 0.2EPHEMEROPTERA 20 4.5

Baetis 2 0.5Leptophlebiidae 13 2.9Stenonema 5 1.1

TRICHOPTERA 63 14.2Cheumatopsyche 1 0.2Diplectrona 62 14.0

DIPTERA 326 73.4Chironomidae 232 52.3Dicranota 88 19.8Pseudolimnophila 1 0.2Tipula 5 1.1

MOLLUSCA 15 3.4Corbicula 1 0.2Pisidium 8 1.8Physella 6 1.4

OTHER 7 1.6Gerridae 4 0.9Sialis 3 0.7

TOTAL 444 444 100 100

a at the proposed bell bend nuclear power plant site, luzerne … · 2012-08-03 · seine in 2007...

Documents